Author
Topic: Is it an infallible statement? (Read 1789 times)

One of the top criticisms of Roman Catholicism I've seen is the lack of concrete knowledge to the number of infallible statements by the Pope.

My question is, is there a statement that you wonder about? Or is the question a vague polemic? If it's not based on a concrete dilemma, then the point can be dismissed. However, if followed by examples to which a denial of infallibility causes extra confusion on the RC faith, then we have a solid argument.

I've seen countless papal statements which have been expressed in such a manner that they appear, on any prima facie reading, to squarely fit within the defining a matter of faiths or morals ex cathedra formula, and yet many of the Roman Church deny that anything other than the big two marian doctrines fall into this category.

Of course, others say the list of infallable definitions is in the hundreds, so ...

Personally, lack of concreteness doesn't bother me, but those on the other side of this debate often wheel out concreteness as an advantage in spiritual matters.

One of the top criticisms of Roman Catholicism I've seen is the lack of concrete knowledge to the number of infallible statements by the Pope.

My question is, is there a statement that you wonder about? Or is the question a vague polemic? If it's not based on a concrete dilemma, then the point can be dismissed. However, if followed by examples to which a denial of infallibility causes extra confusion on the RC faith, then we have a solid argument.

LOL. Where to begin?

Unam Sanctam.

Dictatus Papae.

The Tomos of Pope St. Leo.

Pope Honorius' letters in support of EP Sergius.

Humanae Vitae.

The bull of Pope Leo IX to EP Michael Cerularius.

Ubi Periculum.

Licet felicis recordationis

and these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

One of the top criticisms of Roman Catholicism I've seen is the lack of concrete knowledge to the number of infallible statements by the Pope.

My question is, is there a statement that you wonder about? Or is the question a vague polemic? If it's not based on a concrete dilemma, then the point can be dismissed. However, if followed by examples to which a denial of infallibility causes extra confusion on the RC faith, then we have a solid argument.

One of the top criticisms of Roman Catholicism I've seen is the lack of concrete knowledge to the number of infallible statements by the Pope.

My question is, is there a statement that you wonder about? Or is the question a vague polemic? If it's not based on a concrete dilemma, then the point can be dismissed. However, if followed by examples to which a denial of infallibility causes extra confusion on the RC faith, then we have a solid argument.

LOL. Where to begin?

Unam Sanctam.

Dictatus Papae.

The Tomos of Pope St. Leo.

Pope Honorius' letters in support of EP Sergius.

Humanae Vitae.

The bull of Pope Leo IX to EP Michael Cerularius.

Ubi Periculum.

Licet felicis recordationis

and these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not familiar with ALL the documents, at least by name, but do they all necessarily NEED to be infallible? Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?

One of the top criticisms of Roman Catholicism I've seen is the lack of concrete knowledge to the number of infallible statements by the Pope.

My question is, is there a statement that you wonder about? Or is the question a vague polemic? If it's not based on a concrete dilemma, then the point can be dismissed. However, if followed by examples to which a denial of infallibility causes extra confusion on the RC faith, then we have a solid argument.

LOL. Where to begin?

Unam Sanctam.

Dictatus Papae.

The Tomos of Pope St. Leo.

Pope Honorius' letters in support of EP Sergius.

Humanae Vitae.

The bull of Pope Leo IX to EP Michael Cerularius.

Ubi Periculum.

Licet felicis recordationis

and these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not familiar with ALL the documents, at least by name, but do they all necessarily NEED to be infallible?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?

are you saying that the Vatican's infallibility is superfluous?

No, but if a document in question already talks about an accepted teaching, then it doesn't need to be infallible.

Oh? Then how do you explain Ineffabilis Deus and Muniffincentissimus Deus, which go on and on quoting teachings the Vatican already accepted (not that they go back to the days of the Apostles, or, in the case of the IC, even predate the schism)? Take for instance the claims of Pastor Aeternus:

Quote

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church...

And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence...

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith...

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession...

And the "definition" fails to define what is ex cathedra. So the problem with all those documents, which, as akimori makoto points out, prima facie, fit the appearances of infallibility.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I was going to say, don't forget Lumen Gentium, which basically says that even if the pope doesn't declare something outright as infallible, the faithful shouldn't really question what he has to say. I had trouble with that back then and it doesn't sound right now. I can't imagine any pope taking advantage of that, but if you get a bad pope in there things could get a little messy. Just ask the pre-Reformation crowd.

Also, don't forget about the one that takes Luke 22:38 waaay out of context when justifying the pope having both temporal and spiritual power. I definitely LOL'ed at that in class. I still laugh about it when I read it. How could the medieval papacy seriously justify something like that? "Behold there are two swords!" Proof-texting at it's finest.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?

are you saying that the Vatican's infallibility is superfluous?

No, but if a document in question already talks about an accepted teaching, then it doesn't need to be infallible.

Oh? Then how do you explain Ineffabilis Deus and Muniffincentissimus Deus, which go on and on quoting teachings the Vatican already accepted (not that they go back to the days of the Apostles, or, in the case of the IC, even predate the schism)? Take for instance the claims of Pastor Aeternus:

Quote

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church...

And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence...

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith...

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession...

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence....

besides quotations from the Fathers (misused, of course).

Creating a basis for the definition isn't surprising. The definition is supposed to follow the faith of the RCC and not develop a new understanding. Therefore, it would need to prove that.

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And the "definition" fails to define what is ex cathedra. So the problem with all those documents, which, as akimori makoto points out, prima facie, fit the appearances of infallibility.

IIRC, Lumen Gentium does provide a checklist for meeting the 'ex cathedra' requirements. However, besides one of the proponent bishops of V1, there has not been any solid word on what is and is not considered infallible. I think that's probably what you meant, anyways.

Also, don't forget about the one that takes Luke 22:38 waaay out of context when justifying the pope having both temporal and spiritual power. I definitely LOL'ed at that in class. I still laugh about it when I read it. How could the medieval papacy seriously justify something like that? "Behold there are two swords!" Proof-texting at it's finest.

Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?

are you saying that the Vatican's infallibility is superfluous?

No, but if a document in question already talks about an accepted teaching, then it doesn't need to be infallible.

Oh? Then how do you explain Ineffabilis Deus and Muniffincentissimus Deus, which go on and on quoting teachings the Vatican already accepted (not that they go back to the days of the Apostles, or, in the case of the IC, even predate the schism)? Take for instance the claims of Pastor Aeternus:

Quote

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church...

And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence...

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith...

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession...

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence....

besides quotations from the Fathers (misused, of course).

Creating a basis for the definition isn't surprising. The definition is supposed to follow the faith of the RCC and not develop a new understanding.

Do tell Wyatt. He is rather wedded to this development of doctrine thing.

Of course, that causes problems when the infallible pope starts affirming things previously denied: no "development of doctrine" to come to the rescue.

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).

However, besides one of the proponent bishops of V1, there has not been any solid word on what is and is not considered infallible. I think that's probably what you meant, anyways.

yes, the halo of infallibility with no substance to it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Also, don't forget about the one that takes Luke 22:38 waaay out of context when justifying the pope having both temporal and spiritual power. I definitely LOL'ed at that in class. I still laugh about it when I read it. How could the medieval papacy seriously justify something like that? "Behold there are two swords!" Proof-texting at it's finest.

It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?

I think Mardukm said that we were lucky that the part of "Unam Sanctam" where the Apostle Peter states through his 194th embodiment that he is the ruler of the secular powers of the world was not claimed as an infallible statement. To this day Catholics are uncertain whether the Pope may dethrone the English Queen or deprive Obama of his office. Learned theologians look at "Unam Sanctam" and argue both ways while the one man who knows stays silent.

Infallible statements are marvellous things. The document may consist of several pages but only one particular sentence will actually be the infallible one and all the rest is really only supporting verbiage. To find the one infallible sentence you have to know that it will be introduced by certain key phrases.

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.

Papal Bulls etc. seem rather like the Curate's Egg. The bishop said to the poor young curate who was trying to eat an obviously bad egg... "I'm sorry to see you've got a bad egg." "Not at all, Your Grace," says the curate, "parts of it are quite good."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Are not many of these backed by other documents or councils, and thus possibly just a reiteration of what is previously believed?

are you saying that the Vatican's infallibility is superfluous?

No, but if a document in question already talks about an accepted teaching, then it doesn't need to be infallible.

Oh? Then how do you explain Ineffabilis Deus and Muniffincentissimus Deus, which go on and on quoting teachings the Vatican already accepted (not that they go back to the days of the Apostles, or, in the case of the IC, even predate the schism)? Take for instance the claims of Pastor Aeternus:

Quote

To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church...

And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence...

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith...

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession...

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence....

besides quotations from the Fathers (misused, of course).

Creating a basis for the definition isn't surprising. The definition is supposed to follow the faith of the RCC and not develop a new understanding.

Do tell Wyatt. He is rather wedded to this development of doctrine thing.

Of course, that causes problems when the infallible pope starts affirming things previously denied: no "development of doctrine" to come to the rescue.

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).

As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Also, don't forget about the one that takes Luke 22:38 waaay out of context when justifying the pope having both temporal and spiritual power. I definitely LOL'ed at that in class. I still laugh about it when I read it. How could the medieval papacy seriously justify something like that? "Behold there are two swords!" Proof-texting at it's finest.

It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?

I think Mardukm said that we were lucky that the part of "Unam Sanctam" where the Apostle Peter states through his 194th embodiment that he is the ruler of the secular powers of the world was not claimed as an infallible statement. To this day Catholics are uncertain whether the Pope may dethrone the English Queen or deprive Obama of his office. Learned theologians look at "Unam Sanctam" and argue both ways while the one man who knows stays silent.

Infallible statements are marvellous things. The document may consist of several pages but only one particular sentence will actually be the infallible one and all the rest is really only supporting verbiage. To find the one infallible sentence you have to know that it will be introduced by certain key phrases.

If one removed oneself from emotional baggage toward the RCC, then perhaps they have a point with the 'temporal powers' thing. After all, if it's Christ's Church, then should it not exercise influence over secular states in order to safeguard that faith?

But, you see, infallibility is basically immunity to incorrectness. That's why I asked if "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" is like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus.

Papal Bulls etc. seem rather like the Curate's Egg. The bishop said to the poor young curate who was trying to eat an obviously bad egg... "I'm sorry to see you've got a bad egg." "Not at all, Your Grace," says the curate, "parts of it are quite good."

Yet, not all papal bulls are considered 'infallible', only direction from the 'top' bishop.

According to Pator Aeternus, no, it doesn't: Rome has spoken. The case is closed. The supreme pontiff is quite impowered to legislate from the bench, ex cathedra.

Not entirely. It also should agree with the already established faith.

LOL. And who is going to disagree with the supreme pontiff when he says his statement agrees (as, for instance, Pastor Aeternus, drones on claiming contrary to fact) with the already established faith? Supreme Pontiff Leo IX stated his demand for the submission of EP Michael Cerularius agreed with the faith established by the Donation of Constantine, which he quotes extensively:the Vatican is selective in its condemnation of "caesaropapism."

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).

As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The boldfaced would be the big problem, as the supreme pontiff always has that "supreme apostolic authority."

Quote

Canon 43

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 02:30:28 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Also, don't forget about the one that takes Luke 22:38 waaay out of context when justifying the pope having both temporal and spiritual power. I definitely LOL'ed at that in class. I still laugh about it when I read it. How could the medieval papacy seriously justify something like that? "Behold there are two swords!" Proof-texting at it's finest.

It seems that I missed a lot of interesting threads during my years I was away from this forum.Can anyone explain the thing about "Luckily, that portion was not infallibly proclaimed" to me? Is that anything like being lucky not to be immune to the chicken pox virus?

I think Mardukm said that we were lucky that the part of "Unam Sanctam" where the Apostle Peter states through his 194th embodiment that he is the ruler of the secular powers of the world was not claimed as an infallible statement. To this day Catholics are uncertain whether the Pope may dethrone the English Queen or deprive Obama of his office. Learned theologians look at "Unam Sanctam" and argue both ways while the one man who knows stays silent.

Infallible statements are marvellous things. The document may consist of several pages but only one particular sentence will actually be the infallible one and all the rest is really only supporting verbiage. To find the one infallible sentence you have to know that it will be introduced by certain key phrases.

If one removed oneself from emotional baggage toward the RCC, then perhaps they have a point with the 'temporal powers' thing. After all, if it's Christ's Church, then should it not exercise influence over secular states in order to safeguard that faith?

"My Kingdom is not of this World"

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

""Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

So, all those protestations by the Vatican that its dogma doesn't require dual loyalty, and it is not in competition with the secular authorities is just a smoke screen?

« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 02:38:17 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

According to Pator Aeternus, no, it doesn't: Rome has spoken. The case is closed. The supreme pontiff is quite impowered to legislate from the bench, ex cathedra.

Not entirely. It also should agree with the already established faith.

LOL. And who is going to disagree with the supreme pontiff when he says his statement agrees (as, for instance, Pastor Aeternus, drones on claiming contrary to fact) with the already established faith? Supreme Pontiff Leo IX stated his demand for the submission of EP Michael Cerularius agreed with the faith established by the Donation of Constantine, which he quotes extensively:the Vatican is selective in its condemnation of "caesaropapism."

I presume all the other bishops who should know the statement's falsehood. Good question.

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).

As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

If one removed oneself from emotional baggage toward the RCC, then perhaps they have a point with the 'temporal powers' thing. After all, if it's Christ's Church, then should it not exercise influence over secular states in order to safeguard that faith?

"My Kingdom is not of this World"

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

""Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

So, all those protestations by the Vatican that its dogma doesn't require dual loyalty, and it is not in competition with the secular authorities is just a smoke screen?

God's kingdom is not of this world, but we are. And living in it, are we not also supposed to "spread the good news"? As well as, safeguard it from heresy?

Though, if one is to take this position, he must be careful not to "live" by the sword, only to safeguard and protect life and faith.

According to Pator Aeternus, no, it doesn't: Rome has spoken. The case is closed. The supreme pontiff is quite impowered to legislate from the bench, ex cathedra.

Not entirely. It also should agree with the already established faith.

LOL. And who is going to disagree with the supreme pontiff when he says his statement agrees (as, for instance, Pastor Aeternus, drones on claiming contrary to fact) with the already established faith? Supreme Pontiff Leo IX stated his demand for the submission of EP Michael Cerularius agreed with the faith established by the Donation of Constantine, which he quotes extensively:the Vatican is selective in its condemnation of "caesaropapism."

I presume all the other bishops who should know the statement's falsehood. Good question.

What I mean is that not every statement would need to be an infallible statement of faith. In the case of Ineffablilis Deus, the RCC had been debating the IC for some time. His statement of faith, with contained 'precedence', created the last word. In a use similar to a one man council. Therefore, everything this 'one man council' says isn't necessarily a declaration.

And even with those declarations which the Vatican has gone out on a limb and identified as "ex cathedra," e.g. Ineffibilis Deus and Munifficentissimus Deus, we get denials that the declaration is infallible, but no delineation agreed on which is the infallible part (to be fair, there is some dissagreement on the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, from those who hold the only definition defining the Faith as infallible, to those who hold every syllable any Father in Council uttered as infallible).

By whom?

by whom what?

Who is doing this denying?

A number of the Vatican's flock, from those licensed by it to teach, to its apologists on the net.

As defined by the papal bull Pastor Aeternus when the First Vatican Council was disbanded in 1870.

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

In this definition we have a set of criteria to determine what should be considered an infallible statement. It is also nonsensical to think that infallible statements only happened after the declaration of the dogma. Therefore, using this definition, these are our criteria:

-when, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians

-he defines with his supreme apostolic authority

-a doctrine concerning faith or morals

-to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.

Just looks like pontificating... lol... pontificating...[/quote]well, they do call him supreme pontiff.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Your own contradictions should be enough to warn people that you don't have all the answers.

answers enough for your posts. When you learn the difference between eyewitnesses to their own time, and scholars studying teachings laid down a millenium ago, we'll discuss it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

If one removed oneself from emotional baggage toward the RCC, then perhaps they have a point with the 'temporal powers' thing. After all, if it's Christ's Church, then should it not exercise influence over secular states in order to safeguard that faith?

"My Kingdom is not of this World"

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

""Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

So, all those protestations by the Vatican that its dogma doesn't require dual loyalty, and it is not in competition with the secular authorities is just a smoke screen?

God's kingdom is not of this world, but we are. And living in it, are we not also supposed to "spread the good news"? As well as, safeguard it from heresy?

Though, if one is to take this position, he must be careful not to "live" by the sword, only to safeguard and protect life and faith.

Your thinking in all of this is exceptionally clear. I wish you had not become cynical. I pray that it passes.

If one removed oneself from emotional baggage toward the RCC, then perhaps they have a point with the 'temporal powers' thing. After all, if it's Christ's Church, then should it not exercise influence over secular states in order to safeguard that faith?

"My Kingdom is not of this World"

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

""Put away your sword," Jesus told him. "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword."

So, all those protestations by the Vatican that its dogma doesn't require dual loyalty, and it is not in competition with the secular authorities is just a smoke screen?

God's kingdom is not of this world, but we are. And living in it, are we not also supposed to "spread the good news"? As well as, safeguard it from heresy?

you're free to agree with the Vatican in "spreading the good news" by pushing the unconverted into a baptismal font by swordpoint, and "safeguarding it" by burning heretics, thinking you are doing God a service, but I'm going to stick with what Christ taugth when He walked the earth. Luke 9:51-56.

You and the Vatican are of the world. Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, His Kingdom on Earth, are in the world, but not of it.

Though, if one is to take this position, he must be careful not to "live" by the sword, only to safeguard and protect life and faith.

yeah, the Vatican has a history of going all over to "saferguard and protect life and faith."

« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 10:43:46 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Take a long hard look at the ROC and her satellites and tell us again that Orthodoxy is not of this world.

Satellites? Is that English for "sui juris"? The ROC doesn't have any of those, though she has 14 sister Churches throughout the world.

So much for Caesar, though his office of pontifex maximus lives on. I wonder if they mint them in 30 piece denominations.

Yes. Not of this world.

« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 03:16:31 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth